HELP US VOICE FOR THE CAUSE OF THE HIMALAYAN REGION AND BEYOND !

Follow by Email

October 22, 2014

[The
3000 MW Dibang dam, rejected twice as it would submerge vast tracts of
biologically rich forests, is to get environmental clearance – but huge local
opposition could stall the project]

By Janaki Lenin

Six years ago,
former Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh laid the foundation stone for the
3000MW Dibang multipurpose dam project. The dam, to be built across the Dibang
river, in the north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, will be the country’s
largest. The state plans to
build more than 160 dams in the coming years.

A dam in Arunachal Pradesh. Photograph: Travelib Environment/Alamy

Dibang
dam will not only generate power but supposedly control floods in the plains of
neighbouring Assam state. The dam’s reservoir was estimated to submerge 5,000
hectares (12,000 acres) of dense forests along the Dibang river valley. The
forest advisory committee (FAC), which examines the impact of infrastructure
projects on wilderness areas, was appalled and rejected it.

For a project so
large, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) failed to assess
critical components of the project and was widely criticised
for inadequately predicting the dam’s effects on the environment. Its
evaluation of impacts on wildlife is a farce. The authors of the document list
creatures not found in that area, such as Himalayan tahr, and concocted species
not known to exist anywhere in the world, such as brown pied hornbill. Of the
ones they could have got right, they mangled the names, referring to
flycatchers as ‘flying catchers’ and fantail as ‘fanter’.

In his scathing
critique, Anwaruddin Choudhury, an expert on the wildlife of north-east
India, sarcastically concluded the EIA makes a case for the project to be
shelved, as Dibang was the only place in the world “with these specialities!”
Despite listing these amazing creatures, the EIA goes on to say “no major
wildlife is observed”.

In a similar vein,
the document claims only 301 people will be affected by the dam. Authorities
must be puzzled that a project with so few affected people should be opposed by
so many. Protests by
local people began soon after the inaugural stone was laid in
2008. Since then large crowds have disrupted public hearings. On 5 October
2011, police fired on one such mass demonstration, injuring 10 people. Regional
authorities branded anti-dam
protestors as Maoist rebels, further angering them.

In
Arunachal Pradesh, the Idu Mishmi and Adi tribes will be the most affected.
They fear loss of grazing land, fishing grounds, and lack of safety of the dam
in a seismically volatile zone. Additionally, they are concerned that the large
number of workers needed to build the dam will overwhelm their cultural
identity and their lands.

People protesting
Dibang dam in Arunachal Pradesh.

When the FAC first
rejected the project in June 2013, it said the “ecological, environmental and
social costs of diversion of such a vast track of forest land, which is a major
source of livelihood of the tribal population of the state, will far outweigh
the benefits likely to accrue from the project”.

Neeraj Vagholikar,
an environmentalist familiar with the case, who works for NGO Kalpavriksh, lists the
concerns of people downstream in Assam: loss of fisheries, loss of
agricultural land on river islands, increased vulnerability to floods caused by
removal of boulders from riverbeds for dam construction, sudden release of
water from the reservoir in the monsoons, and safety of the dam in a
geologically fragile and seismically active region.

Arunachal
Pradesh resubmitted the proposal in February 2014, dropping the height of the
dam from 288 metres to 278 metres and saving 1,100 acres of forest. The FAC
rejected it again in April 2014.

Prakash
Javadekar’s ministry of
environment and forests also rejected the proposal on 28 August
2014, and cited these reasons in its letter: “[The] proposed area is very rich
in biodiversity, sensitive ecosystem being at the edge of hills and flood
plains and having large number of endemic and endangered flora and fauna, etc.
Moreover, such project is most likely to have considerable downstream impact
including impact on the Dibru-Saikhowa NP [national park] in Assam which is yet
to be studied.”

This
time it sailed through the clearance process. At the time of writing, the
minutes of the FAC meeting granting approval have not been made public, and the
final height of the dam is still unconfirmed. Anti-dam activists suspect the
height of the dam may be lower by 20 metres, and the dam is likely to submerge
4,300 hectares (10,586 acres) of forest.

Javadekar has
repeatedly stated he supported development
without destruction of environment. But it’s just a matter of days
before he affixes his seal of approval to the dam. The FAC’s previous concerns
for the area’s biodiversity and the lack of studies of the impact in Assam were
brushed aside. A project that claims to control flooding in Assam has not
conducted one public meeting in that state nor was the chief minister’s demand
for consultation acknowledged. The ministry’s own concerns about the impact on
Dibru-Saikhowa national park remain unaddressed. This is the latest in a series
of moves made by thegovernment to
push large projects at the cost of the environment.

When he was a
prime ministerial candidate, on 22 February 2014, Modi had said in
a speech at Pasighat, Arunachal Pradesh: “I know that the people of
the state are against the building of big dams, and I do understand their
sentiments. We can still tap those potentials with proper scientific technology
and small dams, besides using solar energy to supplement them.” Either he had
changed his mind in six months, or he never meant what he said then.

However, forcing
these approvals through may not make an iota of difference. The 2000MW lower
Subansiri hydroelectric power project got all its clearances, and yet after
spending over £500m, the project was brought to a halt in December 2011. The
largest anti-dam people’s movement, “unprecedented in
India’s hydropower history,” refuses to allow dam construction.

Activists
believe the buildup of a massive opposition in Arunachal Pradesh and Assam may
render the Dibang dam a non-starter too.